Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This communication is in response to application 18/559,640 filled on 11/08/2023. Claims 1-12 are pending and are hereby examined. No claims are allowed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Stay location unit configured to (Claim 1)
Grid identification unit configured to (Claim 1)
Estimation unit configured to (Claim 1)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitations “stay location unit”, “grid identification unit”, and “estimation unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification fails to properly disclose the features of a “stay location unit”, “grid identification unit”, “estimation unit”. Paragraph 51-52 discusses that the elements of the device may be implemented in the form of hardware modules or software modules, but it does not disclose the specific structure of the hardware that makes up a “stay location unit”, “grid identification unit”, “estimation unit”. Therefore, the claims 1-12 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For the purpose of compact prosecution these “units” are interpreted as a general-purpose computing system with a processor executing software.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. The terms “lower” and “larger” are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms aforementioned terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which resolution changes based on size of the location information is unknown. For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted to a general-purpose computing system that associates resolution with error range.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim recites a value is allocated to each grid by dividing “gross floor area” by “proportion in which the specific building exists in each of the grids”. The claim is indefinite because the scope of the divisor (“proportion in which specific buildings exists in each of the grids”) is unclear. The word “proportion” implies a part or share in relation to a whole; However, it is unclear what the whole is. In other words, the claim describes:
v
a
l
u
e
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
=
g
r
o
s
s
f
l
o
o
r
a
r
e
a
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
=
g
r
o
s
s
f
l
o
o
r
a
r
e
a
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
?
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as allocating a value that equals total area divided by another value.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim attempts to claim a computer implemented process without providing steps involved in the process. Claim 6 recites a “use” claim without positively recited steps as to how the use is practiced, see MPEP 2173.05(q). For the purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as a general-purpose computing system with a processor executing software that associates area values with use-specific area.
Claims 7 and 11 recite the limitation "the primary use". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 and 11 positively recite the determination of “specific use” along with intended use or results of the largest area being a “primary use”. Determination of primary use is not positively recited. Therefore, dependent claim 7 and the last step in claim 11 reciting “the primary use” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, “primary use” is interpreted to mean “specific use”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The independent claims (1 and 8) recite a method and systems to evaluate location data to make estimations based on the processed data. These claim elements are being interpreted as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Using location data to estimate a user’s stay purpose can equivalently be achieved by human observation and evaluation of the data. For example, a human can determine a person is likely eating at a restaurant if their location is at a restaurant. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract idea of receiving information, processing information, and displaying the result of the analysis (i.e. processing location data to estimate stay purpose) in a general computer environment. The stay location identification unit, grid identification unit, and estimation unit are interpreted to be a general-purpose computing system with a processor executing software (see 112(b), and 112(f) analysis). However, there is no practical application or significantly more because they merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claim 4-7 and 11 introduce the new abstract idea of Mathematical concepts, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)). The recites “summing area” of buildings to perform further mathematical calculations such as division to estimate the purpose of stay. These claim elements are being interpreted as mathematical calculations including mathematical operation (summation and division) to determine a variable or number. Further, there is no practical application or significantly more as the mathematical calculations are used to make an estimation (the aforementioned mental process above). The application fails to integrate the judicial exception or significantly more because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement the abstract ideas. The estimation unit which is interpreted to be a general-purpose computing system with a processor executing software, merely acts as a modality to implement the abstract ideas and is not indicative of integration into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it attempts to claim a process without the necessary steps involved. The claim is a “use” claim that does not recite proper steps in a method, see MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because, the claim is directed to software per se. The claim is directed to computer program without structural limitations. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2-3, 7, and 9-10 introduce no new abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact analysis under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20210044930 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20200037102 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 and 8, Li teaches:
A stay purpose estimation device comprising: a stay location identification unit configured to identify a stay location of a user; [see at least Li: (Para 0006) “the present disclosure proposes a method, an apparatus, a computer device and a storage medium for stay point recognition”, (Para 0050) “The general-purpose stay point may be determined based on a spatial location attribute.”]
and an estimation unit configured to estimate the user's stay purpose, based on use-specific areas of buildings included in the stay grid. [see at least Li: (Para 0049) “The general-purpose stay point may include a positioning point located in an Area of Interest (AOI) having a stay attribute. The AOI may be referred to as information area and refers to an area-shaped geographical entity in map data”, (Para 0050) “For example, the positioning point on Beijing-Xinjiang Freeway is usually a moving point, whereas the positioning point in the Summer Palace is usually a stay point, and the Summer Palace is a POI having the AOI. Therefore, the positioning point located in the AOI having a stay attribute may be determined as a stay point.”]
However, Li does not teach but Zhang does teach:
a grid identification unit configured to identify a grid of the stay location as a stay grid in a grid system that divides a target region into a plurality of grids; [see at least Zhang: (Para 0004) “Gridding is a way of dividing two-dimensional geo-space, and each grid covers a certain geographical area. The geo-fence may be approximated as a grid set”, (Para 0006) “In one aspect, a method for determining index grids of a geo-fence, includes: determining a circumscribed grid of the geo-fence, wherein the circumscribed grid is a smallest single grid in a pre-defined granularity system that can contain the geo-fence”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine stay estimation (Li) with applying a grid to an area (Zhang). One of ordinary skill would have recognized using a grid to divide a target region would help in analysis of the person of interest’s location. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Li and Zhang teach the limitations of claim 1. Li further teaches:
wherein the estimation unit is configured to: identify use of a building included in the stay grid; [see at least Li: (Para 0049) “The general-purpose stay point may include a positioning point located in an Area of Interest (AOI) having a stay attribute. The AOI may be referred to as information area and refers to an area-shaped geographical entity in map data.” (Para 0053) “For a well-known POI such as the abovementioned Summer Palace, its AOI may be easily obtained. The AOIs of some smaller POIs or POIs which are not well known might be obtained by virtue of specific means. For example, regarding the POI ***scientific and technological park with 5,000 staff members, if it is found after analysis of historical data that many users access the WiFi corresponding to the ***scientific and technological park every day, the AOI of the ***scientific and technological park may be determined according to these users' positioning locations.”]
However, Li does not teach but Zhang does teach:
and determine, based on the use-specific areas obtained by summing area of building with each use, a specific use with a largest area as a primary use of the stay grid. [The limitation recites determining a specific use based on summing areas of buildings. The largest area being the primary use describes intended results with no positively recited step of determining primary use; see at least Zhang: (Para 0021) “SF is the area of the geo-fence; SI is a sum of areas of all the index grids,”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the location purpose determination (Li) with a summation of areas within a grid. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that multiple areas could be part of the same or different building, and that they could be added together to find total use area. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Li and Zhang teach the limitations of claim 4. Li further teaches:
wherein when a specific building exists in the stay grid and other grids, an area of the specific building used to determine the use-specific areas is a gross floor area of the specific building or a gross floor area division value allocated to the stay grid among gross floor area division values [The limitation recites a building existing and the area of a building being the entire grid (“gross floor area”) or part of the grid (“gross floor area division value”). There is no positively recited step and instead the claim recites intended use or results that does not carry patentable weight.
However, Li does not teach but Zhang does teach:
wherein the gross floor area division values is allocated to each of grids by dividing the gross floor area of the specific building according to proportion in which the specific building exists in the each of the grids. [The limitation recites a value allocated to each grid by dividing “gross floor area” by “proportion in which the specific building exists in each of the grids”. The claim is indefinite because the scope of the divisor (“proportion in which specific buildings exists in each of the grids”) is unclear, see 112(b) rejection for further details. Therefore, the claim is interpreted as allocating a value that equals total area divided by a value, see 35 USC 112(b) rejection. Again, there is still no positively recited step as the claim recites intended use or results; however, art is still provided: see at least Zhang (Equation 2) “P =SO/SI”, (Para 0021) “In Equations 1 and 2, SO is a sum of areas of the portions of all index grids that overlap with the geo-fence… SI is a sum of areas of all the index grids,]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stay estimation (Li) with a division of areas in a grid (Zhang). One of ordinary skill would have recognized that dividing areas would be useful an area with multiple buildings. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Li and Zhang teach the limitations of claim 5. Li further teaches:
wherein the estimation unit is configured to use the gross floor area or the gross floor area division values of the specific building based on a use of the specific building, when the use-specific areas is determined. [The limitation recites using various values for determination of use-specific areas. The limitation is a “use” claim, see 112(b) rejection and MPEP section 2173.05(q); see at least Li: (Para 0049) “The general-purpose stay point may include a positioning point located in an Area of Interest (AOI) having a stay attribute. The AOI may be referred to as information area and refers to an area-shaped geographical entity in map data.”]
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Li and Zhang teach the limitations of claim 4. Li further teaches:
wherein the estimation unit is configured to estimate the user's stay purpose by using the primary use of the stay grid and a stay start time and stay duration at the stay location. [see at least Li: (Para 0019) “if the to-be-recognized positioning point is located in an area of interest where a selected general-purpose stay point lies, determining that the to-be-recognized positioning point is the stay point.” (Para 0052), “In addition, the obtained historical positioning points for a user may refer to obtained historical positioning points of respective users within the latest predetermined time period.”]
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Li and Zhang teach the limitations of claim 8. Li further teaches:
wherein the estimating further comprises: identifying use of a building included in the stay grid; [see at least Li: (Para 0049) “The general-purpose stay point may include a positioning point located in an Area of Interest (AOI) having a stay attribute. The AOI may be referred to as information area and refers to an area-shaped geographical entity in map data.” (Para 0053) “For a well-known POI such as the abovementioned Summer Palace, its AOI may be easily obtained. The AOIs of some smaller POIs or POIs which are not well known might be obtained by virtue of specific means. For example, regarding the POI ***scientific and technological park with 5,000 staff members, if it is found after analysis of historical data that many users access the WiFi corresponding to the ***scientific and technological park every day, the AOI of the ***scientific and technological park may be determined according to these users' positioning locations.”]
estimating the user's stay purpose by using the primary use of the stay grid and a stay start time and stay duration at the stay location. [see at least Li: (Para 0019) “if the to-be-recognized positioning point is located in an area of interest where a selected general-purpose stay point lies, determining that the to-be-recognized positioning point is the stay point.” (Para 0052), “In addition, the obtained historical positioning points for a user may refer to obtained historical positioning points of respective users within the latest predetermined time period.”]
However, Li does not teach but Zhang does teach:
determining, based on the use-specific areas obtained by summing area of building with each use, a specific use with a largest area as a primary use of the stay grid, and [The limitation recites determining a “specific use” based on summing areas of buildings. The largest area being the “primary use” describes intended results with no positively recited step of determining primary use; see at least Zhang: (Para 0021) “SF is the area of the geo-fence; SI is a sum of areas of all the index grids,”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the location purpose determination (Li) with a summation of areas within a grid. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that multiple areas could be part of the same or different building, and that they could be added together to find specific use area. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Li and Zhang teach the limitations of claim 8. Li further teaches:
A computer program coupled to hardware and stored in a medium in order to execute each operation performed in the method of claim 8. [see at least Li: (Para 0102) “It should be understood that although not shown, other hardware and/or software modules could be used in conjunction with computer system/server”, (Para 0108) “Computer program code for carrying out operations disclosed herein may be written in one or more programming languages or any combination thereof”]
Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20210044930 A1) in view of Zhang (US 20200037102 A1) in further view of You (US 20200271787 A1).
Regarding Claim 2 and 9, the combination of Li and Zhang teach the limitations of claim 1. Li further teaches:
and identify, as the stay grid, a grid to which the latitude/longitude of the stay location belongs in [see at least Li: (Para 0052) “Each of the obtained historical positioning points may include information such as a user's identification, a positioning time, a positioning location (may be in the form of latitude and longitude)”]
While Li teaches latitude and longitude of stay location, it does not explicitly teach a grid. However, Zhang teaches:
wherein the grid identification unit is configured to: specify a resolution of the grid system [see at least Zhang: (Figure 5 and 6)]
the grid system having the specified resolution [see at least Zhang: (Figure 5 and 6)]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of stay location (Li) with the use of a grid (Zhang). One of ordinary skill would have recognized using a grid to divide a target region would help in analysis of the person of interest’s location. Further specifying resolution would help in the accuracy of identification. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in combination would have yielded predictable results.
While the combination of Li and Zhang teach a stay location grid with a resolution, it does not explicitly teach error ranges. However, You teaches:
based on an error range of location information used to identify the user's stay location; [see at least You: (Para 0042) “An environment map can be divided into a number of different locations using grid cells. Each grid cell can be used to identify a location in the environment map”, (Para 0043) “The occupation probability module 506 may be configured to calculate an occupation probability for the grid cells in an environment map using error ranges for transformation points contained within the grid cells.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of a grided stay location (Li and Zhang) with the use of error ranges (You). One of ordinary skill would have recognized error ranges would be important in ensuring accuracy estimations. Adjusting resolution in accordance with error ranges would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, yielding predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3 and 10, the combination of Li, Zhang, and You teach the limitations of claim 2. While Li teaches a stay location it does not explicitly teach a grid resolution. However, Zhang teaches:
wherein the resolution of the grid system is specified to be lower as the error range of the location information is larger. [The limitation recites intended use or results and does not carry patentable weight. However, art is still provided; see at least Zhang: (Para 0048) “Since the index accuracy of the grid set depends on the granularity of the grids containing the boundary of the geo-fence in the set, it is allowed that the grids within the geo-fence have a larger granularity, so as to reduce the number of index grids while meeting the precision requirement.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of stay location (Li) with adjusting grid resolution (Zhang). One of ordinary skill would have recognized using a resolution adjusted grid to divide a target region would help in accurate analysis of the person of interest’s location. The invention is merely a combination of old elements and in combination would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST)
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300 Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.L.T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626